Math says Romney wins in November
 

According to these Colorado professors who claim their analysis has never been wrong (since 1980.)
http://www.webpronews.com/presidenti...alysis-2012-08

In 2012, ?What is striking about our state-level economic indicator forecast is the expectation that Obama will lose almost all of the states currently considered as swing states, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida,? Bickers said.

No sense in voting, math has spoken.

Then you can all see again how tax cuts don't stimulate the economy. :(

I'm not waiting for tax cuts. I'm waiting to see if they actually implement Paul Ryans budget and if they do what happens if anything.
At least we'll have a budget...

Well, at this point they are the only ones. There are a few other experts who are rarely ever wrong that show a pretty big uphill battle ahead for Romney.

Basically, Obama can win his strong and leaning states and he will only need about 25 more electoral votes which means if he wins Florida he wins. Romney can win his strong and likely states and still need about 85 more electoral votes which means he will need to win just about every battleground state. That will be very difficult for him to do.

Strange then how it has worked every time! You should only be worried about the death tax anyway... :1orglaugh

kane, it'll be interesting to see what these Colorado professors say if their system proves wrong then!

Actually it never did. Reagan lower taxes the economy went no where then he raised taxes 11x and it boomed.Clinton also raised taxes then it boomed.

For sure.

I can see how, if it were closer to the election, they could make a prediction. Something will have to give. the guy from fivethirtyeight.com has been dead on the last few election and he gives Romney about a 30% chance of winning.

I think it will be close in the popular vote, but Romney has a lot of ground to make up in the electoral collage. If Romney can't win Florida it will make it next to impossible for him to win and Paul Ryan may turn out to be an anchor in Florida.

More liberal Kool-Aid. It even worked for your boy Kennedy.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...ower-tax-rates

no matter who wins.....we lose

When it comes to tax cuts and tax rates it is all just arbitrary bullshit numbers that few people really pay.

Romney is a perfect example. He says himself is effective tax rate over the last 10 years has been around 13%. Supposedly the top tax rate is 35%, but clearly he is nowhere near it.

Hell, big companies like Exon and General Mills pay ZERO federal income taxes.

There are also millions of middle class people who don't pay nearly the set tax rate because of the all the write-offs that they get.

The people who get screwed the most by federal taxes are those who are single and don't own a home so they have limited write-offs.

Your facts are from a right wing group? lol

Democrats... :1orglaugh

Can't come up with anything better than that, eh?

When you have no arguments, throw some poop. Stay classy republicans.

---

The interesting thing about these colorado guys is that it's an old school economic and unemployment model. The question is, does an old school model apply in an era of one black swan after another?

Where from do you want them to be from ????

Quicken Loans ?????

:1orglaugh

Math to determine politics? That's like using math to figure out how to get laid.

It's all about charisma. It takes a charismatic candidate to beat the incumbent. Reagan beat carter, clinton beat bush, Gore lost to bush, etc. See the patern?

People don't change horses based on policy, they change based on personality, and Romney is about the least charismatic and most robotic candidate in history.

Fucked it up for you...

It has for the past 22 years..
Who the fuck knows though.. They're both the same.. Either way we gotta grab our ankles.

Major companies hiring thousands of people who are all taxed from the money they were paid from that major company...... they shouldn't get tax breaks?

Bottom line NO ONE knows who is going to win.

The reason Romney pays a lower rate of tax is because he does not pay a Federal Income tax rate but pays a Capital Gains Tax rate as his only source of income is from his investments and his investment monies have already been taxed by a Federal Income Tax...as he earned it.

According to Bloomberg only about 50% of his income is from investments the rest was from other sources. There are enough loopholes and tricks that he can lower his rate dramatically. He isn't alone. Warren Buffett only paid 11% in 2010.

What I am getting at is that the tax code is so complex and filled with so many holes most people don't end up paying anywhere near the actual supposed tax rate for what they earn.

Exactly. But don't ruin a good story! lol

http://www.270towin.com/
http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...llege_map.html
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

You are correct as well.

I know some folks like to say: "Oh, in the past the tax rate was much higher!"
But people NEVER actually paid that rate. Anybody with a brain has always had a good accountant and wisely invested their money in such a way as to pay the minimum taxes.

Only a goddamned idiot would actually pay 35% of their money to the federal govt.

NOBODY...and I mean NOBODY does that.

Everyone in the U.S. takes every deduction that they can think of...including all the middle class people.

I definitely believe that a flat tax for everyone of 15% would bring in a lot more income to the govt. (to waste on invading other countries of course...lol).

That way EVERYBODY pays their fair share. Not just the rich people. As it is now...the top 5% pay 53% of ALL the taxes. It's total bullshit. The other 95% should be paying their share too if they are able to work.

It was/is my understanding that Romney does not have a job and does not own a business and lives entirely off of investments...but I could be wrong. None the less you probably are correct about most people not paying the highest rate.

I sold all of my business enterprises a few years ago and invested the monies and I am currently completely retired. When I was earning monies from business I had various accountants over the years and always told them not to be creative...other than using normal business deductions...as I never minded paying taxes...so I always payed near to or the highest rate of income tax. I now do my own taxes and pay the highest rate for Capital Gains taxes...and do not mind doing so...though I do get irritated over many things the government spends monies on.

You're a clown. I've said a bunch of times (including directly to you) that i'm neither dem nor rep. Reading obviously isn't your strong suit.

When I post information, i do my best to make sure it comes from independent sources. As I've said, I just like facts. In that other thread, I posted information from independent sources. You replied with links from the OC Register and the Heritage Foundation, 2 long-time staunchly conservative organizations. I think you have no clue what the terms 'unbiased source' and 'independent source' mean.

Truth be told, when i reply to you, i'm not really replying to you. Your capacity for critical thought is clearly non-existent. I'm just trying to get real information out there. Except this time, clown. I'm replying directly to you.

Yep. My brother is a great example. He is married, has three kids and works in construction. A couple of years ago the company he works for gave him a company truck and they pay for the gas. Up until then he was able to write off the mileage to work since he didn't work in one static location. Between the deductions for his kids, interest on the house and mileage and other things for work he ended up paying hardly any federal taxes. Meanwhile, another friend of mine who makes about half as much as my brother, but is single, rents and has no write-offs actually pays more in taxes than my brother does.

That has changed some in recent years because my brother can no longer write off the mileage, but he is also saving about $500 a month in gas costs so it works out just as well for him.

A flat tax with no loopholes would work better, but as you hinted at, until we stop invading countries and wasting money like drunken Kennedy's at a strip club we will never balance the budget.

From what I read in 2010 he had $21.7 million in income. Of that $12.6 million was capital gains. The rest is broken up from many different sources including payments from offshore shell companies, interests, dividends and at least $500K from speaking/writing.

I don't blame Mitt for paying as little taxes as possible. If I had that kind of money I would do the same thing. My point in all of this is that when they raise and lower taxes it has a pretty minimal effect on the very rich who have the means and connections to greatly lower their tax bill so they rarely pay anywhere near the top amount.

The top 5% earned over 1/3rd of all income, not just 5% of all income.

That's the point. The top 5% of anything are always the "top".

So they kicked ass and earned 1/3 of all income...yet still pay 53% (over 1/2) of ALL taxes. While 50% of people pay no taxes at all.

Yet...everybody gets the same exact social benefits. No wait...the richer folks do NOT get the same amount of benefits because the benefits and social safety net is by definition NOT intended for them.

And now I hear congress floating the idea of people who are wealthy not getting their social security! Even though social security is supposed to be you getting back your own money.

It has been bankrupted by the feds so badly that now they are going to break the entire "promise" on which Social Security was originally founded.

It's insane.

For instance...my wife's mother was killed when she was only 22 years old. My wife was 2 years old. Her older brother was 4 her younger brother was only a few months old.
Somehow, that meant that she and her brothers received social security checks until they were 18!!!

Her mom had only worked a couple of small jobs and had paid no more than a couple of hundred bucks into the system. But the federal govt. paid her brothers and her $400 each every month for all those years! That's $1,200 a month going to people who never put shit into the system to begin with.

Meanwhile, people work all their lives and now have to worry about getting their money back from social security.

It's all fucked up. :(

That's how insurance works. Some people pay into it all their lives and get a fraction of it back. Others pay much less into it and receive 10x the benefits.

Yeah, but I don't think that the govt. forcing you to let them "save" your money for your own retirement and then just keeping YOUR money if you don't get it all back...is the same thing as buying a life or health insurance policy.

Dem's have an ace in the hole, they will spring it on him after the RNC.

Could be right. Americans as a whole are pretty dumb and many are probably missing the success that was the Bush administration.

Even professors smoke crack every once in a while.

Actually you're wrong about that as far as the EU is concerned. Young working people's taxes are being used to support the older generation retired. Too many old people and their taxes never covered them for the life expectancy of today. Which is the same mistake the private sector made with pensions.

Yes private is a good way to go. If you can afford the exorbitant costs of the private sector.

Your debate is flawed with this part. "keeping"

Can you explain how the Government keeps your money please.

THEY win. They always win.

As far as social security is concerned there are a few scenarios where it keeps it.

1. You pay into it your whole life then die in your early 60's before you are old enough to draw it. If you aren't married you can't leave it to your kids or someone else. The government keeps it.

2. They are talking about passing a law that means test social security. Basically this means that if have more than whatever their specified amount is in net worth you will not be able to draw it even though you paid into it.